Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#111

Post by tannhaeuser »

nitwit005 wrote: post #25
Nullabillity wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No. Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? > If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No. Err, yes. > Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, wi…

> Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? If people just like their product more, what's the problem? There's no point in punishing them for being cheaper or more liked than the competition.

Anti-trust regulation isn't about punishment. It's about maintaining fair market access in the best interest of a civil society, and having an economical system with currencies, civil law, courts, etc. work for most people rather than just very few. In fact, if a democracy doesn't push against monopolies, it would just become a farce.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#112

Post by dageshi »

smt88 wrote: post #67
ucaetano wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that isn't a monopoly. Imagine Coca-Cola creates a new flavor, with a taste so unique that nobody else is able to replicate it. Is that a monopoly? Is Coca-Cola abusing its power? No, and no.

As others have pointed out, you just seem to be using a different definition than the rest of us are. A single, unreplicated product is never considered a monopoly. A monopoly implies that customers don't have an alternative.

Google has a single unique flavour of search engine, it's very popular, it's not the only one but it's the one people prefer...

How is it any different?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#113

Post by anoncake »

ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

> AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers.

Power that can be abused will be abused.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#114

Post by austhrow743 »

anoncake wrote: post #113
ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

> AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. Power that can be abused will be abused.

For many situations though, it can't be abused. Without large barriers to entry and need, the monopoly can only be maintained through providing good value. There isn't much coca cola can do to abuse consumers with a 100% cola monopoly.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#115

Post by dools »

ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

"a monopoly is perfectly fine" <-- where do you pull that statement from?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#116

Post by dools »

bepotts wrote: post #93
ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

Exactly. I don't want to get all political, but the people pushing for this definition change are (usually) economic leftists that are naturally worried about the size and power of corporations. It's their default state. There's nothing wrong with that, but be upfront with your motives and don't mask empirical concern with political ideology. These people would have broken up Walmart in the 90s and Sears in the 70s i…

What is an "economic leftist"?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#117

Post by otabdeveloper1 »

ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

Google's only product is online advertising, the only kind of advertising that matters in the 21st century.

This is a big deal because they can abuse their advertising clout for evil purposes. (E.g., advertise Chrome but put out a prohibitive pricing scheme for Firefox.)

But it's not a monopoly yet because Facebook and Amazon are competing actors in this space in the USA, and other nations have their own local actors.

In theory, though, if Google went on a really aggressive attack via their Chrome, Android and Analytics properties then they could kill off the competition.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#118

Post by iamgopal »

in a hypothetical scenario where all consumer goods sold via amazon, will amazon be able to get whatever price they want ? the answer is no, because consumer do not have infinite money to pay for it, monopoly or not. ( i.e. will all consumer goods produce via amazon, sold via amazon, and all people living doing job at amazon, works ? )

so on the side note, is there economic simulator, that can simulate such scenario ?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#119

Post by Vinnl »

bilbo0s wrote: post #82
colllectorof wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reason why anti-trust is based on precise economic definitions is that it leaves as little room as possible for the government to favor friendly players. When you need to prove harm to consumers, the bar is high, as it should be. Yeah, I'm sure that allowing companies to merge right until the point where they make consumer's lives a living hell is great for the society and the economy. >The classic example is: C…

> Google, Facebook, and Amazon control not only what you can do as a consumer... ??? I'm not sure this is true? I don't feel like they are controlling me when I go to Target or Walmart??? But I'm not sure if there is something maybe with the advertising that is making me go to Target and Walmart? Either way, it's totally up to me as a consumer where I spend my money I would think.

I think I'm on the "clear definition of monopoly" side, but in this specific example: if Amazon is able to make specific companies go bankrupt, that product will no longer be available to you any more even if you go to Target or Walmart.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#120

Post by Vinnl »

ucaetano wrote: post #36
markdown wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may or may not be a problem, but it's still a monopoly. One way it could be a problem is that it makes it extremely difficult for new entrants to appear. If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?

> If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops? Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers. Cola is just a flavor of soda, which is just a type of drink, and can be easily interchangeable with an enormous number of drinks: water, juices, teas, etc. As…

> Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers.

Is that not exactly what that example is about? I, as a consumer, will not be able to experience their super-cola.

Post reply on HN